The article describes the deliberations of our new nation over the right to bear arms. Apparently, at issue was the right of a state to maintain “a well regulated militia” to suppress slave revolts. Southerners knew of Northern hostility towards slavery and feared that Congress may be reluctant to support militias designed to suppress slave insurrections.

The object of the 2nd Amendment was neither to fight foreign aggression nor to fight domestic tyranny. Southern colonies were reluctant to commit their militias to the Revolutionary War, preferring to reserve them for slave control. Disappointed with the performance of militias during the Revolutionary War and during Shay’s Rebellion, the new nation sought a federal army to fight both foreign and domestic threats.

The 2nd Amendment had little to do with an individual’s right to bear arms. The reaction to Shay’s Rebellion removed any sentiment for a “right to rebel” against an oppressive state. It had much to do with the fear of slave revolts and the desire of Southern states to maintain “a well regulated Militia” to suppress these revolts.

The article asserts that an individual right to bear arms was a recent invention. When the NRA fought the Brady Bill, it did not cite the 2nd Amendment but instead cited the 10th Amendment exclusively. It was only later that the “Insurrectionist Theory” was formulated with NRA funding.

Try reading some of Stephen Halbrook's work on the 2A. Legal scholarship that blows that hatchet job out of the water; vetted and peer-reviewed.

Further, that "article" is from 1998. See exactly what the SCOTUS thought, or rather, didn't think of it in Heller and McDonald.

That drivel from UC-Davis, written by Carl T. Bogus (such an appropriate name) isn't worth wiping your ass with. Bogus has made a career of trying to rewrite the Constitution to his socialist, anti-2A agenda for years.

He has failed, miserably, many times over on trying to sue the firearms industry under... convoluted... tort law claims, serving only to pad his own socialist reputation and add to his CV for his positions at Roger Williams School of Law in Rhode Island.

The 2nd Amendment had little to do with an individual’s right to bear arms.

Total BS. The term 'people' is used in several other amendments, always referring to an individual right. 1st amend: right of the people to freely assemble4th amend: right of the people to be secure9th amend: retained by the people10th amend: to the people

The 2d clearly says 'of the people' and is no different than any of these others. It's an INDIVIDUAL right

A reading of Saul Cornell’s essay brings several things to mind. First, there has been a torrential outpouring of writings on Second Amendment issues for quite some years.In any event, it is easier to fathom the motivations of the National Rifle Association and Brady legislation supporters than it is the dozens of those who reside in the halls of ivy. To further complicate matters, one finds both liberals and conservatives on each side of the debate.

#5737894 - 10/22/11Re: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment
[Re: whelennut]

XL5
Campfire Regular
Registered: 06/15/11
Posts: 649
Loc: East of the Sun, West of the M...

The battles at Lexington and Concorde happened where they did specifically because the Redcoats were coming to seize the colonial's arms, so it's only natural the founding fathers would be sensitive to the issue of a government attempting to deprive the common citizen of arms.

And as Brother whelennut has pointed out, the expressed purpose of all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights (indeed, all 12 of the proposed amendments, two of which failed to be ratified) was to limit the power of government over its citizenry. Any contention that even the tiniest portion of any of the ten was intended to bestow further power upon the government is absolutely assinine. ASS-I-9.

When the NRA fought the Brady Bill, SCOTUS had not yet set a precedent as to whom 2A pertained to (regardless, 10A should have sufficed). DC V Heller corrected SCOTUS' previous oversight.

The battles at Lexington and Concorde happened where they did specifically because the Redcoats were coming to seize the colonial's arms, so it's only natural the founding fathers would be sensitive to the issue of a government attempting to deprive the common citizen of arms.

And as Brother whelennut has pointed out, the expressed purpose of all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights (indeed, all 12 of the proposed amendments, two of which failed to be ratified - a balanced budget amendment and a term limts amendment, both sorely needed!!) was to limit the power of government over its citizenry (to place "chains upon the fedral gubmnt - NOT the citizenry nor the individual 13 [nation] "s"tates!) . Any contention that even the tiniest portion of any of the ten was intended to bestow further power upon the government is absolutely assinine. ASS-I-9. INDEED!!

When the NRA fought the Brady Bill, SCOTUS had not yet set a precedent as to whom 2A pertained to (regardless, 10A should have sufficed). DC V Heller corrected SCOTUS' previous oversight.

I have to ring in and ask if this foolish person has ever read the Federalist papers. I guess the answer would be a resounding no. Many times the founding fathers spoke on the subject of guns and rights of "the people", all of which was stated numerous times in the Bill of Rights.

Many times people who thank they know what the hell they are talking get it wrong simply because they read only what they want to and throw the rest in the damn garbage simply because it does not fit their Socialist agenda.

Everyone please stand up for what you believe is right and vote these idiots out.

[it will be "interpreted" for today's use based on today's needs, just like the other ammendments. [/quote]

Justice Scalia makes it clear in Heller that the Constitution is to be interpreted in terms of the meaning of the words as used in common parlance at the time the particular provision was adopted. I'd have to reread the decision, but I don't think the dissenters fought him too hard on this. Unfortunately, this won't stop the meaningless inquiries into "the founders' intent" or "the living Constitution."

The scariest part is Heller was decided by one vote...by an unelected judge.

_________________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

My son is 5. I think he will be the last generation to know of 2A rights for "the people". New SCOTUS members will soft land right into a new interpretation, likley something to do with national guard.

You have more faith in the electorate?

_________________________

Originally Posted By: Archerhunter

Quit giving in inch by inch then looking back to lament the mile behind ya and wonder how to preserve those few feet left in front of ya. They'll never stop until they're stopped. That's a fact.

I think the 2nd Amendment is clear as it was written over 2 centuries ago. The 2nd Amendment, as the rest of the Constitution, needs to be interpreted to meet the needs of the current society. The Founding Fathers were limited to the language and mindset of the current day and intentionally wrote certain ambiguities into the text knowing this. Thomas Jefferson, as many of the Founding Fathers, were Deists. They did not adhere to the strict writings of any populist or organized group but they knew that the vast majority of new Americans did. They had to construct a document that would both sell to the current population and live for many years. Very smart these guys. I think that this kind of discourse is EXACTLY what they wanted. I do not have a Ph.D. and am not a legal scholar but I will argue this point with anyone. And have.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."George MasonCo-author of the Second Amendmentduring Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."Zachariah JohnsonElliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"Samuel Adamsquoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The Founding Fathers on Arms"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."George WashingtonFirst President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."Thomas Paine

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"Patrick HenryAmerican Patriot

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "Thomas Jeffersonletter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

Some new to me some old.. all prophetic and will be printed and put on the wall of my boys homeschool classroom. Lord knows my boys would NOT see many if any at any public school in this nation. Why is it that these principals seem oh so simple??? Might it be because they are?